REITER fl. JONES &: LAUGHLIN.
The last. question, and the one of most difficulty, is that of infringement. ·Upon one side of a fabric of two layers of muslin with an interposed layer of paper, which is furnishe<i by the Taylor & Tapley Como pany, the Zylonite Company attached a layer of zylonite, and sends it back to the Taylor & Tapley Company, with knowledge that it is to be made into collars and cuffs, and the method of its manufacture. The Tl:\ylor & Tapley. Company then cuts out the blanks somewhat larger: than the finished article, and turns over the fabric at the edges, having; cut away the muslin surface, so as to make the edge thinner. There is a surface of zylonite upon both sides at all the edges of the collar, except at the neck-band. The edges are made secure with paste. Thus, or two outer sheets of zylonite are produced, with an il(terlining of mus... lin and paper. The defendants say that they simply make a collar by turning a hem upon an unpatented fabric. The question in the case is whether the unpatented fabric 'has been intentionally changed intos. patented one, and not whether the change has been affected by a method which has long been familiar to the seamstress. I can add, upon. this point, nothing to the suggestions which were made in 30 Fed. Rep. 437, and which led me, upon the motion for preliminary injunction, to the conclusion that the defeudants infringe. Let there be a decree in favor of the plaintiffs for an inj unction and for an accounting.
et al. v.
w: D. Pennsylvania.
June 9, 1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-FuRNACE-PATENTABILITy-INVENTION.
Letters patent granted Febrnary19, 1878, to J; H. Helm, assignor of Howard Morton, fpr an improvement in a furnace for heating links. consisting of a crown to the :fire-chamber, .provided with a series of celIs, which are plain openings passing through the detachable crown. the upper surface of which is fnrnished with grooves in which rest rods which support tAll links while being heated, are not void for want of invention. ' The grooves in the upper surface of the detachable crown are a part of the device; It claim for the cells or holes without the grooves having rejected as non-patentable, and withdrawn before the patent issuediJi Its present f o r m . .
SAME-ExTENT OF CLAIM,
Evidence that a person made a perforated and grooved tile for the cover of a like furnace in 1875, the year before Helm's alleged invention; that he only used it lI;.part of the time from 1875 to 1878; opposed by evidence that he did not uselt prior to the fall of 1876,-does not s.how that the above patentil void by reason of prior invention. .
In Equity. Bill for an accounting. D. for complainants. qew,Qf (.I. (Jhrist'!;f1 for .,defendan18.
BitADLEY,·Justice. This is a ona patent granted to J. H. Helm, $sign<>t of Howard Morton, for an improvement in furnaces for heating links, dated February 19, 187$·. The invention is described as relating to an improvement in link-welding furnace;· and as consisting in furnishing the crown of the furnace with a detachable section provided with cells for heating chain-links to a welding degree, and in the peculiar construction of the furnace and its stack with relation to said detachable section. The former part only is in question in this case, and is covered by the first claim of the patent,which is in the following words: "In a furnace for heating links; the detachable section, C, of the cwwn of the fire-chamber, D, said section being provided with grooves and cells, substantially as hereil} described, and for the purpose set forth." The description referred to is as follows: "The detachable sectio11 of the crown. C, is manufactured from a good article of fire cla1'or clays, which will stand a great degree of heat. The detachablecrowll, 0, is provided with a series of cells, I, which are plain openings which pass thraugh the detachable crown, C. The upper surface of the crownpiece, C, is furnished with grouves, m, in which rest the rods, g, which support the links, e, while being heated." .. In other words, 0 represents a cover or lid of the furnace, that can be removed at pleasure as it burns out, and that has holes in it, in which the links are placed to be heated preparatory to welding, being suspended upon rods lying on the top of the lid in grooves made for that purpose. The grooves serve to keep the rods steadily in position. Now,· re-read ing the claim, it is plain that it is not the detachable lid alone, nor the lid with holes or cells alone, that constitute the invention; but a detachable lid proVided with grooves and cells. This construction is enforced by a practical disclaimer which took place in the patent-office. The application for the patent was originally made by J. Henry Helm in September, 1876, and he assigned the invention to Howard Morton. Morton afterwards, on July 28,1877, renewed the application, and submitted .an additional claim for the cells or holes in the crown or lid, without the grooves. But this claim was rejected as non-patentable, and the claim was withdrawn. The patent was then issued in the form it is in now. This was a clear renunciation of the proposed claim, and brings the case within the principle of Leggett v. Avery, 101 U. S. 256; Cartridge 00., v. Cartridge QI., 112 U. S. 624,5 Sup. Ot. Rep. 475, and Orawford v. Heysinger, 123 U. S. 589, 8 Sup. Ot. Rep. 399. The grooves being a material part of the thing patented, the patent was not infringed if the defendants did not use them. It is contended by the defendants that they have not used the grooves for some time past, but they admit that they did fornlerly use them. For this· former use, therefore, they are accountable·if the patent is valid. This renders it necessary to inquire into its validity. It is contended that the making of the grooves was no invention; and that, if it was, they had been made and used before for pfl).Jisely the same purpose. The fair questions to put, however, are, was there no invention in the whole thing taken together,the detachable crown or lid with
HURD .,. SNOW.
its groove/il and cells? And had such a crown or lid boon made and used before? In answer to these. questions the patent itself is prima facie evidence in favor of the patentee, or of the complainants who represent him; and unless there is clearly no invention in what is claimed to be such, or preponderating evidence of anticipation, the patent should be sustained. I cannot say that there was clearly no invention in the thing patented. It is certainly a very useful contrivance, and has greatly facilitated the making of chains. It could not, therefore, have been a very obvious improvement, or it would have been adopted long ago. As to alleged anticipation, there is, indeed, evidence that one Blakey made a perforated and grooved tile for the cover of a like fumace in 1875, the year before Helm's alleged invention. But the intermittent character of his operations, extending over a period of throo years, from 1875 to 1878, in which he only used a tile part of the time, invests the date of his actual use with some uncertainty, and the evidence against such use prior to the fall of 1876 is of such a character that there cannot be said to be a clear prep'onderance of so clear as to justify a decision against theva.Iidity of the patent. This is the conclusion to which I have come after a careful reading of the whole testimony, which need not be referred to in detail. My judgment is that there must be a decree for the complainants, declaring that the grooves are a material part of the first claim of the patent, and that, thus construed, the patent is valid as to such claim, and that the defendants have infringed the same in using the detachable crown with grooves and cells, and that there should be a reference to ascJrtain the profits and damages arising from said infringement.
HURD 71. SNOW.
(Oireuit Court, D. Conneetictet. June 19, 1888.)
PATENTS lPOB INvENTIONs-PATENTA:BILITy-INVENTION- PACKING FOR TRANSPORTATION.
Letters patent No. 113.239, dated April 4. 1871 issued to Ignazio Allegretti, for a new article of manufacture and commerce, consisting of blocks of ice· cream or water-ice put up, for purposes of convenient transportation, in metallic moulds, which were first to be subjected to the snperfreezing process, to make the cream or water-ice harder. and then placed in loosely-fitting reo frigerator paper boxes. the superfrebzing process. both in moulds and in mass, not being new, is merely for putting a known article into convenient receptacles, and void for want of invention.
In Equity. Bill.by William H. Hurd against CharlEls P. Snow for infringement ofletters patent, . JQhn J. Jennings, for plaintiff. Oharks T. Polhamus. for defendant.